The EU Referendum.

[MPS16]

...
There is no reason to believe that the EU would not honour any agreements. ...

Are you extracting the urine or what .

[astral276]

Are you extracting the urine or what .

It would seem an odd statement to make if reneging on any deal was not in your mind. Just proves the duplicity of the EU - and Cameron. You can't believe anything either says.

I did see comment that the EU made promises to Denmark which were lodged with the UN and claimed to be 'legally binding' (sound familiar?) which the EU then reneged on. I haven't been able to find the specifics of the matter though.

Jacob Rees-Mogg for PM.

[dpetes]

Mel is this somewhat you are looking for??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgekbX9Okws

[astral276]

Mel is this somewhat you are looking for??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgekbX9Okws

Probably not. Those are the same lies and deceptions made to the UK (and likely many countries) about the EEC to get us to join (in the case of the UK, to remain in the EEC as we never had a referendum on joining the EEC). The comment that I saw specifically related to guarantees made by the EU to Denmark, deposited with the UN, claimed to be legally binding, and then reneged on by the EU. Exactly what is trying to be sold to us now and with the same intent.

I've found the comment:

Cameron says depositing it with the UN will make it legally binding, but this is totally untrue.

The European Court of Justice has explicitly stated that it is not bound even by UN Security Council resolutions, and Brussels cheerfully tore up a number of UN-deposited guarantees which were given to Denmark in the 1990s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...Tusk-live.html

I just can't find the specifics of what guarantees are being referenced. Probably been censored from search engines by the EU under 'The Right to be Forgotten' legislation.

Thanks for the input and link though. It does illustrate well the duplicity of our politicians and the EU machine.

Jacob Rees-Mogg for PM.

[westlondoncarparts]

In most democratic political systems, the Governments and Parliaments create laws and the Judiciary implement and uphold the laws. There is always a separation between law making and law implementation / upholding functions to avoid Governments abusing legal systems and compromising the independence of the Judiciary.

The EU is no different. Once the Council of Ministers and the European Union Parliament have passed legislation, it is then the responsibility of the EU Court system to ensure that the law is upheld in case of dispute.

This means that whatever EU Treaties have been signed and whatever EU laws have been passed in accordance with the Treaties, the EU Court system is there independent of the EU Council of Ministers / EU Commission / EU Parliament and can make determination that the EU Council of Ministers / EU Commission / EU Parliament are breaking their own laws.

This means that any agreement between the EU and the UK that is passed into EU law is the responsibility of the EU Courts to uphold in the case of any dispute. Talk about lodging papers with the UN is a bit of a red herring and misses the point.

This also means that whatever Treaty provisions there were in respect of countries like the UK and Denmark entering the EEC by signing up to the Treaty of Rome, those provisions have always had to be complied with.

Every man and his dog have their own axe to grind regarding the EU. What would be helpful in any debate, however, is for everybody to try to ground their debate in facts rather than half baked myths and falsehoods. Just because somebody pronounces a view or creates some video clip does not necessarily mean to say that they are speaking truth. The starting point for any sensible debate is what is contained within the various Treaties that have evolved into what is now the European Union.

If I were a betting man, I would lay money on the table that most of the people who are so prolific in their pronouncements about the EU have never taken the time to read through the various Treaties and to understand their implications. Most of them either have an emotional for or against response to the EU and are trying to pick and mix whatever material is available in the public domain to support their subjectivity – irrespective of whether the material is correct or not.

Just to make the debate even more muddled, it looks as if EU Project Fear is now kicking off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-35519210

[astral276]

Cameron starting to get desperate: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...exit-vote.html

[tony41]

Thank you, Westlondoncarparts for a clear, lucid exposition of the position. You put it much better than I could.

[sidthelamp]

In most democratic political systems, the Governments and Parliaments create laws and the Judiciary implement and uphold the laws. There is always a separation between law making and law implementation / upholding functions to avoid Governments abusing legal systems and compromising the independence of the Judiciary.

The EU is no different. Once the Council of Ministers and the European Union Parliament have passed legislation, it is then the responsibility of the EU Court system to ensure that the law is upheld in case of dispute.

This means that whatever EU Treaties have been signed and whatever EU laws have been passed in accordance with the Treaties, the EU Court system is there independent of the EU Council of Ministers / EU Commission / EU Parliament and can make determination that the EU Council of Ministers / EU Commission / EU Parliament are breaking their own laws.

This means that any agreement between the EU and the UK that is passed into EU law is the responsibility of the EU Courts to uphold in the case of any dispute. Talk about lodging papers with the UN is a bit of a red herring and misses the point.

This also means that whatever Treaty provisions there were in respect of countries like the UK and Denmark entering the EEC by signing up to the Treaty of Rome, those provisions have always had to be complied with.

Every man and his dog have their own axe to grind regarding the EU. What would be helpful in any debate, however, is for everybody to try to ground their debate in facts rather than half baked myths and falsehoods. Just because somebody pronounces a view or creates some video clip does not necessarily mean to say that they are speaking truth. The starting point for any sensible debate is what is contained within the various Treaties that have evolved into what is now the European Union.

If I were a betting man, I would lay money on the table that most of the people who are so prolific in their pronouncements about the EU have never taken the time to read through the various Treaties and to understand their implications. Most of them either have an emotional for or against response to the EU and are trying to pick and mix whatever material is available in the public domain to support their subjectivity – irrespective of whether the material is correct or not.

Just to make the debate even more muddled, it looks as if EU Project Fear is now kicking off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-35519210

i have grounded my arguments with facts i have posted page after page of the written concept of the eu , the last time i did this you and tony 41 failed to even acknowledge the eu dark history, i have also debated with you the aspects of further legislation of integration, it is not misleading to make people aware of the concept and history of what they will be asked to vote on, it certainly has never been discussed in any treaty or forwarded by any campaigner, the simple fact is a fascist government in the 1930s drew up and started to integrate a super state europe,through a war, they lost the war, but have been allowed through deception and the 3 at the time , to carry on with there master plan,

so you fail to acknowledge the history/roots of the eu and argue the point of later treaties, treaties are not legally binding if they are based on deception,you can not hold the people to ransom over any treaties if they were unaware of all the facts and implications of treaties, its the oldest trick in the book to sell one aspect of a policy and leave 99% unread/unannounced,

the eu is fundamentally undemocratic we are vastly under represented in any eu discussions on legislation are vote is laughable , we can never hope to win a vote with so many members from so many states , whatever is decided is imposed on us whether we like it or not, i personally dont want or like to be under control of a system i have no say in , nor do the M E Ps who are supposed to represent my interests,

[astral276]

Busted?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ant-camps.html

Next to go will be the security sharing scare. The UK has one of the best security information services in NATO. In the current world climate it would be mad for the EU to bite off their nose to spite their face. Information sharing would go on and new security treaties agreed.

Is DC trying to out-slime Tony Blair?

Jacob Rees-Mogg for PM.

[kazeran]

So, just for simplicity's sake, lets say we leave the EU?
what will be the real benefits?
If you don't mind me asking?